Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.

Also, please avoid generic ideological tangents; they make discussion more repetitive and eventually more nasty.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

"From the people that bring you 'men can get pregnant', we present to you..."

Of all the almost-correct-but-actually-harmful things Colbert has said, this is easily ranks among the most harmful ones. It's the worst sort of wannabe-aphorism: it simultaneously obscures an incredibly interesting line of thought, increases political division, and means very very different things to different people.

Colbert meant "liberal media is more reflective of reality than conservative media", but because that's not pithy, it's truncated into the openly deceptive "reality has a liberal bias". The minor political difference the average Californian has from someone who lives in Texas does not engender them with a more accurate view of reality. Believing that is a core reason said Texan probably dislikes said Californian. In reality: they're both moderate "Liberals" who probably agree on almost everything, given a mature enough definition of "liberalism".

Reality is unbiased by definition.

Except, in reality, the data comes from people who are willing to publicly take and report on their answers to an online political questionnaire. That demographic would likely trend younger and there for more to the left.

Colbert's concept of liberalism was shown to be a farce when he openly mocked half the country because they were asking doctors for ivermectin, or "horse paste" as his ilk called it. A medicine the FDA as of today admits can be a treatment for COVID. The reason he did this? To fall in line with the establishment on Pfizer's grift. If the FDA et al. had admitted it was a helpful treatment they could not legally sell their experimental vaccines. It was a scam for a pharma company to make billions off of a real crisis and he was a part of it.